Talk:Starbase 157
Beta Quadrant How is this starbase established as being in the Beta Quadrant, exactly? I can't seem to find any such designation on the map this seems to be from. Same goes for Morska system, and possibly others. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:12, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :Larger map (http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/maps.jpg) to smaller map (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMOEX2GW4AAtJqw.jpg:large). Both maps are based on the non-canon reference works Star Trek: Star Charts and Stellar Cartography: The Starfleet Reference Library. http://trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/star-trek-discoverys-canon-connections-episode-103/5/ They are not Xerox copies of the original maps, as there are changes--Memphis77 (talk) 12:35, October 17, 2017 (UTC) I may be missing something here, but the "small" map doesn't seem to clearly overlap with the large one. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:03, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :The reason for it not overlapping stems from the revisions made by the artists to the original source material. The important thing here is that the artists did not move the Mempa sector out of the BQ; they just gave it a new home by moving it to the grid "north" of it.--Memphis77 (talk) 14:03, October 17, 2017 (UTC) ::the larger map interestingly is labeled Alpha / Beta Quadrant Overview (text in top center). While the equivalent part of the map in Star Trek: Star Charts exclusively shows the Beta-Quadrant. So, yeah. Beta-Quadrant should be removed--Shisma :::There's a distinct 'Alpha Quadrant'/'Beta Quadrant' divider in the top left of that map, though, where everything right of that is in Beta Quadrant. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:28, October 17, 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Schisma: beyond the label the large map also seems to show the Alpha/Beta Quad border (see this enhanced pic) so it's probably safe to assign anything you can identify on that one to a quadrant. Or at least that's what people have been doing. @Memphis: I didn't mean the maps not perfectly alligning with the Star Charts, I meant that the "smaller" map from ep 105 doesn't seem to completely align with the "larger" one from 103. If the small map doesn't define where the Beta quadrant lays, and it can't conclusively be identified as a subsection of the large map, what's the rationale then, beyond "We know Mempha's in the BQ and SB 157 is seen on a map containing it so it must also be in the BQ" style original research? -- Capricorn (talk) 15:53, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :I have fixed the entries.--Memphis77 (talk) 22:16, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :::: Not owning either referenced map texts, and therefore looking at this from a shown on-screen canon perspective, I have to agree with DarkHorizon. There is a distinct division on the Alpha and Beta Quadrants in the map, not just at the top of the map, but also in the left-side of the map. :::: In fact, this is much clearer in Capricorn's map that most everything shown on the map is in the Beta Quadrant, because the line bisecting the Federation emblem indicates the border between the two quadrants. The same map also shows the Mempa sector well into the Beta Quadrant (in terms of map scale), and therefore in the zoomed in map, which also shows the Mempa sector, is clearly a portion of the Beta Quadrant. Even Khitomer is in the Mempa sector, again clearly in the Beta Quadrant based on the large map, which is also supported by Sulu's line in ST6 about going to Khitomer: "I'm getting underway now. But you should know, I'm in Alpha Quadrant. The chances of my reaching the conference in time are slim." As well, establishes that Qonos is in the Beta Quadrant, and from the map, it is "south west" of the Mempa sector. :::: And as an aside, this isn't original research, as is being harped about, it's simply reading and interpreting a map. So I'm not seeing why this is being so hotly contested. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 22:59, October 19, 2017 (UTC) ::I can confirm, as an owner of the texts, that the locations seen in the smaller map are located in the Beta Quadrant. When I made the changes to the pages, locating them in the Beta Quadrant, I did so based on an interpretation of the maps.--Memphis77 (talk) 02:57, October 20, 2017 (UTC) That the large map makes clear where the Alpha and Beta Quadrants lie is not really disputed by anyone, including me. What I was concerned about was if information from the two maps should be "added up" to establish facts that neither establishes individually. I think if it were clear that the small map was a detail of the larger one a case could be made for that, but if it wasn't, if it's just two maps that share some locations, then historically the answer to that question has been a strong no, because maps and statements haven't generally been made with consistency with other maps in mind. (for example, as I recall we went through the question of if this map could be used to establish certain places in certain quadrants based on their relation to other places in known quadrants). -- Capricorn (talk) 15:31, October 20, 2017 (UTC) ::With the larger map being seen in greater clarity, with the latest batch of preview images, I can actually match locations on the map seen in the episodes with the maps in the books. Although some of the smaller map locations do not match completely their location as seen on the larger map, they can be definitely be pinpointed to the Beta Quadrant. There is one major glaring error with continuity, as the map makers for Discovery used an older version of the maps, where Klach D'kel Brakt and the Briar Patch were depicted as two separate locations, not as the one location they came to be after Star Trek: Star Charts was published. I suppose one could rationalize that there are two Briar Patches. For now, for many of the locations, I will keep quadrant information in the bginfo.--Memphis77 (talk) 19:10, October 28, 2017 (UTC)